logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.12.19 2014노5901
의료법위반
Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant G) merely lent only the name of the medical institution founder under employment of F, a non-medical person, to the extent that it constitutes a co-principal in relation to the establishment of a medical institution by F.

The application of Article 87 (1) 2 of the Medical Service Act to Defendant G is unfair, and Article 90 of the Medical Service Act, which is a provision that punishs the act of medical personnel employed by a medical person to a medical institution that opens a non-medical person, should be applied.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A, B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and Defendant G: fine of 4 million won) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant G’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 90 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person employed by a person who is not a medical institution founder and engaged in medical practice shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 3 million won. The above provision merely contains the elements of “medical practice employed by a non-medical person,” and does not include any act in which a medical person participated in the establishment of a non-medical institution. Therefore, if a medical person conspired to establish a medical institution by a non-medical person or a non-medical corporation and processes it, it constitutes a co-principal of a violation of Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2015, Nov. 30, 201). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above provision provides Defendant G with the name of the medical institution and reported its establishment to the non-medical institution, and provided it directly to the employees of GF through the name of the patient.

arrow